Sprinter brake problem found by chance

Routine state inspections didn't spot the issue, which was revealed during a visit on another matter

At a media event after the brake problems became public, Bob Young, general manager for operations and maintenance at Bombardier, points to one of wheel assemblies that contains rotors that are prematurely wearing out. [U-T file]
— Nelvin C. Cepeda

At a media event after the brake problems became public, Bob Young, general manager for operations and maintenance at Bombardier, points to one of wheel assemblies that contains rotors that are prematurely wearing out. [U-T file]
— Nelvin C. Cepeda

Document

The brake rotor wear issue that forced the shutdown of North County’s Sprinter trains was not discovered during a routine inspection and, in fact, was only discovered by happenstance because state inspectors were following up on another brake problem.

North County Transit District officials say that a maintenance contractor and a former district engineer knew about the uneven rotor wear for at least 18 months without informing superiors.

During that time, the California Public Utilities Commission conducted some 50 inspections of the light rail service without catching the issue, according to records obtained by U-T Watchdog.

Commission inspectors finally identified the problem on March 1, while following up on a Jan. 14 failure in another area of the braking system.

During the January incident, a Sprinter train automatically halted because the air brake system failed. The operator was forced to unload passengers between stations. A follow-up inspection on Jan. 22 revealed that the failure occurred within the air compressors that run air into the brake system.

When state regulators conducted a follow-up visit on March 1, they identified the unrelated problem with rotors wearing unevenly, leading to the shutdown of the system on March 9 — the $477 million rail line’s fifth anniversary. The trains may be idled for four months while awaiting replacement parts from Europe.

“In January... the brake system operated as intended,” NCTD Spokeswoman Deborah Castillo said, referring to the automatic shutdown for passenger safety. “The follow-up discovery of the rotors was purely coincidental.”

Officials with the utilities commission said they are not sure why the rotor wear was missed by their inspectors previously, but noted that action was taken within days of its discovery, meaning the system works.

“Our transit system inspection program identified the deficiency and took speedy action to deal with it,” Public Utilities Commission spokesman Andrew Kotch said. “The fact that CPUC staff identified the problem demonstrates the program’s effectiveness.”

State inspections

Since the Sprinter opened in 2008, the state has performed more than 50 inspections of the Sprinter operation including inspections of the track, signals and horns, mechanical and maintenance records and the trains themselves.

For the most part, the findings were for less serious issues, such as a rail-crossing gate being slightly lower than required, short horn sequences and holes in the right-of-way fencing. Two of the inspections came after an injury accident and a fatality on the line.

None of the state inspections mention problems with the brakes until the failure in January.

Before the January incident, state inspectors examined the Sprinter’s brakes two other times, in Sept. 2011 and in August 2012, according to state records.

During the many other state reviews, inspectors only checked the district’s maintenance records, which indicated the brakes were in order.

At the utilities commission, Kotch praised California’s program. He said it’s the only state with dedicated rail inspectors. Others follow federal guidelines that delegate inspection responsibilities to the local agencies and require the states to verify the inspections are taking place.

In California, Kotch acknowledged, some inspections only review records. He said that’s because state inspectors play a dual role, enforcing both state and federal standards. The Federal Railroad Administration only requires that inspectors review the records, not inspect the vehicles.

No measurements included

North County Transit District officials have said that at least one district employee and the maintenance subcontractor knew about the issues with the rotors for more than 18 months, but did not tell their respective superiors. The engineer says he did inform them, although not in writing.

The district’s preventive maintenance records gave no indication of any problems with the brakes.

Bombardier, which provides maintenance for the Sprinter vehicles and track, is a Canadian aerospace and ground transportation corporation with worldwide operations. It partnered with Veolia Transportation in 2007 to win the operation and maintenance contract for the Sprinter.

State inspectors noted in their March 1 report, during which they first discovered the issue with the rotors, that none of the Bombardier’s preventive maintenance forms documented any abnormalities to the rotors.

They also did not include measurements of the rotors, which could have helped state inspectors discover the issue sooner.

District officials said they are trying to determine why this was the case.

“The larger issue in this instance was the lack of reporting on the inspection reports that would have flagged the premature wear, and the failure by the NCTD rail maintenance engineer to report the rotor issue and to request funding to address the problem, and the failure to make sure the inspection reports submitted by the contractor reflected the problem,” NCTD spokeswoman Deborah Castillo said.

The Watchdog called and emailed Bombardier’s local mechanical manager Brian Carroll seeking comment, and did not receive a response. A phone call to Bombardier’s transportation unit spokeswoman was not returned.

Other agencies include rotor measurements on their inspection records, said Christopher Chow, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission.

The transit district’s maintenance report is essentially a checklist of the parts of the train that crews are supposed to examine, with a space on the first page for workers to detail any problems uncovered during the inspection.

The Transit District provided a sample of the maintenance reports. Next to the section that details how rotors are to be inspected, maintenance workers wrote the code “534,” which indicated that they checked the rotor measurements and found they met the manufacturer’s specifications.

When asked about the district’s confidence in Bombardier’s maintenance and what it has done to rectify any of the issues, Castillo said those questions would be answered during an ongoing investigation.

“These are good questions that as we investigate the incident NCTD will let the incident investigation facts and findings direct us to those answers when it is completed,” Castillo said. “To comment and provide conclusions at this time would be premature.”